Approved 05/19/08
Town of Duxbury
Massachusetts
Planning Board
Minutes 05/05/08
The Planning Board met in Duxbury Town Offices, Mural Room, lower level on Monday, May 5, 2008 at 7:30 PM.
Present: Amy MacNab, Chairman; Brendan Halligan, Clerk; Cynthia Ladd Fiorini, James Kimball, and Harold Moody.
Absent: John Bear; and George Wadsworth, Vice-Chair.
Staff: Christine Stickney, Planning Director; and Diane Grant, Administrative Assistant.
Ms. MacNab called the meeting to order at 7:39 PM.
OPEN FORUM
Open Forum was deferred until later in the meeting.
OTHER BUSINESS
Because it was not yet time for the scheduled public meeting, the Board addressed other business.
Engineering Invoice:
MOTION: Mr. Halligan made a motion, and Mr. Kimball provided a second, to pay Vine Associates invoice #1404-3 dated April 22, 2008 in the amount of $1,125.00 for services related to 95 Tremont Street (Standish LLC).
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
Escrow Release:
MOTION: Mr. Halligan made a motion, and Mr. Moody provided a second, to approve the release of escrow funds for consulting engineer review of 766 Temple Street / Industrial Tower and Wireless, at the applicant’s request due to withdrawal of their Administrative Site Plan Review application.
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously, 5-0.
Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA): Ms. Stickney reported that she had met with Ms. Sara Wilson, Acting Chair of the ZBA, regarding tri-party agreements. Ms. Stickney stated that during the 1980s there were issues with banks not recognizing tri-party agreements and recommended that the ZBA could urge the applicant to consider another means of guarantee. She noted the statute provides three alternative options: cash, covenant, or security agreement.
Ms. Stickney also reported that as of May 6, 2008, Ms. Elizabeth Lewis and Mr. Thomas Heneghan are resigning from the ZBA. The Board of Selectmen has appointed Mr. David Marsocci and Mr. John Maher to the ZBA. Ms. Wilson will serve as Acting Chair of the ZBA until reorganization.
Duxbury Crossing, off Tremont Street: Mr. Kimball reported that a road has been staked on the property and asked if the applicants have approval to begin constructions. Ms. MacNab asked if the accumulated fines for illegal tree clearing had been paid. Staff offered to get answers.
CONTINUED PUBLIC MEETING, ADMINISTRATIVE SITE PLAN REVIEW:
454 FRANKLIN STREET / INDUSTRIAL TOWER AND WIRELESS, LLC
Ms. MacNab opened the public meeting at 8:00 PM. Present for the discussion to represent the application were Matthew and Melissa Williams, residents of 454 Franklin Street; Mr. George Williams, owner; Mr. Donald Cody and Mr. John Champ of Industrial Tower and Wireless, LLC; and the attorney for Industrial Tower, Edward Angley. Also present were Mr. Walter Amory, Town consulting engineer, and approximately 30 residents.
Mr. Halligan read the correspondence list into the public record:
§ Mutual Extension form signed at the Planning Board meeting of 04/14/08
§ Form letters dated 04/05/08 submitted by 11 residents re: concerns with project
§ Letter from C. & D. Ivanof dated 04/13/08 re: concerns with project
§ Letter from P. Brannigan dated 04/14/08 along with 21-page attachment, “Massachusetts List of Endangered Species”
§ Meeting minutes of 04/14/08
§ Letter from staff to property owner dated 04/15/08 re: request to attend 05/05/08
§ Board meeting
§ Fax from Chief DeLuca dated 04/17/08 re: no further Police concerns
§ Letter from F. Prosl dated 04/18/08 with attachment, “History of Land Activities at 454 Franklin Street as Witnessed by Frank Prosl, Abutter at 474 Franklin Street”
§ Letter to Conservation Commission from Maas/Sunguroff family dated 04/26/08 re: concerns with project
§ Enforcement Orders issued by Conservation Commission to property owner on 04/30/08 re: work in wetlands resource areas
Ms. MacNab opened the discussion by stating that the Planning Board review is restricted to Zoning Byalws Sections 615, Administrative Site Plan Review and pertinent bylaws from Section 610, Wireless Telecommunications Services Facilities. She noted the many letters submitted by residents regarding the proposed cell tower on this site, and stated her appreciation for the time and effort put forth. She noted that one letter made an allegation that a Planning Board member may have a conflict of interest because he or she lives near the site, and responded that all names and addresses of Board members are open record and no member lives near the site. She stated that the Planning Board works to serve the best interest of the Town of Duxbury and to uphold its Zoning Bylaws.
Ms. MacNab also reported that all members of the Board attended a site visit on May 3, 2008 and found it eye-opening. Board members were made aware of the many activities that appear to be going on at the site.
Ms. MacNab invited the applicants to present their application. Atty. Angley submitted a letter dated May 5, 2008 and read the letter aloud. The letter emphasized the applicants’ issue with the owner being asked to attend the public meeting, stating that the Administrative Site Plan Review should focus only on the land that the applicant is leasing and not the entire site. The letter also reviewed the seven provisions of Administrative Site Plan Review and how Industrial Tower and Wireless believes this application meets them. Atty. Angley stated that any zoning violations occurring on the property do not relate to land under lease by Industrial Tower and Wireless.
Mr. Champ from Industrial Tower and Wireless presented the site, noting that the access is from an existing road. The applicants also have a 25 foot utility and shared access easement on the road. The tower site includes a 60 foot by 60 foot compound surrounded by a siltation fence and an eight foot high chain link fence with a ten foot gate. The equipment building is 20 by 40 feet and will include three different carrier modular structures, each one 12 by 20 feet. Mr Champ noted that although the compound area is 60 by 60 feet, the leased area around the building is 100 by 100 feet, to include 20 feet surrounding the compound area. Mr. Champ noted that a 170 foot monopine tower is proposed. The area has been flagged for wetlands.
Mr. Cody from Industrial Tower and Wireless then presented the application. He stated that it is helpful that the Board has viewed the site, noting the existing driveway that has been approved by the Army Corps of Engineers and heavy equipment has crossed. Mr. Matthew Williams agreed to provide a copy of the Army Corps of Engineers certification.
Mr. Cody noted that they plan to install utilities from an existing above-ground pole, and it is yet to be determined if the utilities can be placed underground or above-ground based on future discussions that are scheduled with the Conservation Commission. Ms. Stickney noted that once utility placement is determined, it should be depicted on site plans.
Mr. Cody stated that the compound will have a generator for emergency backup, as mandated by the FCC. The generator will be fueled by propane. The site will be monitored remotely for intrusion.
Mr. Cody noted that the Fire Department has recommended that the existing driveway be widened to 18 feet in order to accommodate emergency vehicles and equipment, and responded that it is physically impossible to widen the road. He stated that there will be no dwelling or septic at the proposed site. The site will be accessed only once every few weeks for routine maintenance.
Ms. MacNab noted that construction vehicles will be required to enter the roadway for installation of the cell tower. Mr. Cody stated that the construction will encompass three stages:
1) Excavation – digging a 30 by 30 foot hold approximately ten feet deep, requiring an excavator
2) Concrete – Trucks will utilize portable bridges if necessary for crossing over culverts
3) Steel tower installation – A 45,000 pound crane will lift the steel tower onto the site. The steel comes in portions that weigh up to 55,000 pounds. This is the heaviest load that would be used on the site.
Mr. Moody asked how long the construction process is expected to take, and Mr. Cody replied that it would take 65 to 90 days, with gaps in activity between phases.
Ms. MacNab noted that the lot gains access through another lot, and asked if the applicants have a right of way or easement over both lots. Atty. Angley noted that they have “exclusive right” of access through their lease, and he offered to provide a copy of the lease to the Board.
Mr. Cody noted that, after construction, there would be limited maintenance traffic onto the site for this project. The tower will not be lit because it is not required for towers less than 200 feet by FCC regulations. Ms. MacNab asked if the equipment building will have exterior lighting, and Atty. Angley responded that they plan to install motion-activated lights. Ms. MacNab asked if paved parking would be installed, and Mr. Cody responded that they plan to use the existing gravel and will add crushed stone to help with drainage.
Ms. MacNab opened the floor to questions from Board members. She asked if a pole would function as effectively as a monopine tower, and Atty. Angley replied that it would not. Ms. MacNab asked if an antennae tower would function as well as a monopine, and Atty. Angley stated that it would. Mr. Cody explained that there are three types of towers: guide tower, lattice tower and monopole. Capacity is a determining factor as to which type of tower would work best. He noted that an antennae tower is currently installed at their site on Modoc Street. Atty. Angley noted that the Design Review Board had preferred a monopole because they felt that the monopine would attract attention visually. Mr. Kimball requested a photograph depicting a tower without the imitation pine branches.
Mr. Moody asked about the grading of the access road. He also noted that the existing dirt road is approximately 13 feet in width but appears considerably narrower over the South River. He questioned whether a portable bridge would be able to support the heavy equipment required for construction of the cell tower and equipment building. Ms. Stickney noted there are three culverts on the access road which could be affected by the weight of equipment. Mr. Champ confirmed that the width on part of the road in question is 13 feet wide as it crosses the river.~Mr. Moody asked about the first culvert beneath the road as to its current condition and longevity.~Mr. Amory pointed out that the culvert needs sufficient coverage and routine maintenance to ensure proper operation and the ability to bear the load of vehicles traveling
over it.
Mr. Moody also questioned the steep descent of the road coming down to the first culvert and if there were any plans for improving slope or road before the culvert~ Mr. Amory estimated the slope to be about 15% and commented that this slope should require routine annual maintenance to ensure it does not become difficult to pass over.~He stated his concern that during construction the road will take a beating and vehicles may get stuck. After construction, he does not believe the steepness of the road would be a concern.
Mr. Kimball noted that information regarding height, elevation, interior and exterior dimension of existing buildings on the site appear to be missing. Atty. Angley responded that the applicants consider the site to include only the 100 by 100 foot leased site, not the entire lot. He stated that the applicants have no control over the area outside their lease.
Mr. Kimball noted that although the applicants refer to a 100 by 100 foot leased area, it is depicted as 60 by 60 feet on the site plan. He also noted that during their site walk, Board members noticed a number of business activities going on at the site that may affect the staging for construction of the building and tower. Atty. Angley responded that the owners will be responsible for clearing the leased area according to terms of the lease. Mr. Kimball stated his expectation that the site will be cleared up to improve upon existing conditions. He added that he would not like to see debris simply pushed aside from the leased area to other areas on the lot.
Mr. Kimball noted that, other than the site plan, other plans included with the application are not stamped. Mr. Cody responded that the manufacturer would certify engineering of the tower plans. Mr. Angley noted that geotech experts will be confirming soil conditions. Mr. Kimball asked if soil conditions had been tested, and Mr. Cody replied that they were not, although they will take care of anything needed.
Mr. Kimball referenced a letter from Mr. Pete Jernigan of Nello, the tower manufacturer, noting that Mr. Jernigan is a civil engineer, not a structural engineer. Atty. Angley noted that some civil engineers are structural engineers as well. He stated that they do not believe this is a planning issue, and noted that they will follow the Building Inspector’s requirements.
Ms. Stickney noted that the site plan does not show the elevations of the Wetlands Protection Overlay District (WPOD), and requested that this elevation and the WPOD line be shown on the site plans. She also noted that any work performed in the WPOD requires a special permit from the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Ms. Stickney also asked if the soil excavated during construction would be removed offsite, and Mr. Cody responded that the soil would be spread around the leased site. Ms. Stickney asked what the applicants would do if they unearthed hazardous materials buried, warning that they should not dispose of them on the site. Mr. Cody agreed to provide protocol regarding removal of hazardous materials.
Ms. MacNab invited the owners to address the Board, specifically regarding more details on the activities and structures on the site.
Mr. George Williams stated that it is not the owners’ intention to be at odds with the neighborhood. He noted that the site has had construction activities for 32 years under the former ownership of Mr. Nudd. Mr. George Williams noted that his son, Mr. Matthew Williams, who resides in a dwelling on the lot, has removed large equipment and numerous dumpsters full of materials left behind by the Nudds. There is still more material that needs to be removed. The Building Inspector has been monitoring the situation.
Mr. George Williams stated that he had reviewed the letters submitted to the Board by neighbors, and the owner’s intention is to be in compliance with their original agreement with the Zoning Enforcement Officer. Mr. Matthew Williams submitted a letter dated May 11, 2006 from Director of Inspectional Services, Mr. Scott Lambiase, discussing the owner’s continued use of the property in the same capacity of the former owner, Mr. Nudd, along with an undated handwritten list of uses signed by Mr. Frank Nudd.
Ms. MacNab asked about the number of structures that are currently being utilized as dwellings. Mr. Matthew Williams stated that the lot contains one house and a one-bedroom apartment located in the barn. The apartment septic is tied into the house.
Ms. MacNab asked about other businesses in accessory buildings on the lot, and Mr. Matthew Williams stated that there is a landscaping business, a cleaning business, and overhead door installation materials are kept on site but there is no office. He stated that the apartment and overhead door storage space are leased out. Mr. Moody asked Mr. Matthew Williams if he owned the landscaping business, and he replied that he did.
Ms. MacNab asked the owners if they are keeping in compliance with grandfathered uses, and Mr. Matthew Williams replied that Mr. Lambiase could confirm that he is. Ms. MacNab asked about the large wall of stumps and trees, and Mr. Matthew Williams replied that they came from landscaping jobs. He stated that he attempted to start a firewood processing business, but heard from the Town that neighbors were complaining about the amount of noise, so this business currently is at a standstill. He has been moving the woodpile to the back of the property in order to reduce the amount of noise, and currently he is planning to process the wood into mulch chips. Ms. MacNab asked if anyone else is selling that wood under another business name, and he replied, “No.”
Ms. MacNab noted that it appears that multiple businesses are operating on the lot rather than the one business that was grandfathered. Mr. Kimball noted that although both the front and rear parcel are zoned Residential Compatibility, on the front parcel there appear to be three businesses and one apartment, and on the larger parcel, along with a residential dwelling, there appear to be two different landscaping companies and the proposed telecommunications business. Mr. Matthew Williams noted that he is part of both landscaping businesses.
Ms. MacNab asked if the owners intend to continue the operations currently grandfathered after the installation of the cell tower, and Mr. George Williams replied that in general they plan to not exceed the grandfathered uses. Ms. MacNab noted that the current landscaping business would create a good amount of activity near the cell tower. Mr. Matthew Williams stated that if the cell tower is installed, he would move the screening business back to a similar location to where Mr. Nudd worked.
Mr. Moody asked if the owners would be able to keep out of the leased area, and Mr. Matthew Williams replied that he believes there is enough room. He noted that he had left some materials in the vicinity of the proposed cell tower in order to show the similarity with Mr. Nudd’s operations. He is working with Mr. Lambiase to clean the front area of the property.
Ms. MacNab questioned earth moving work near the river, and Mr. Matthew Williams responded that a load of rocks had been dumped in the wrong area in his absence. He stated that he plans to file a Notice of Intent with the Conservation Commission to delineate wetlands on his property.
Ms. MacNab noted that the Board needs to contemplate the use of the site moving forward. They need to take into account all of the activities during and after construction. The Board’s intention is to cull out information and pass it along to ensure zoning enforcement is in compliance. Mr. Matthew Williams stated that he was approached with a proposal for a cell tower. If another location works better, he would urge the applicants to pursue it.
Ms. MacNab stated her concern with the access road and its ability to support the number of vehicles and the weight and size of those vehicles. She noted that the river was once narrower and then it was dammed and a roadway was built over it. Mr. Frank Prosl of 474 Franklin Street, an abutter, provided the history, stating that the dam was built in the early 1980s. Before the road was installed it was a footpath. Mr. Nudd, the former owner property, built the dam in order to construct the road.
Mr. Amory, the Town consulting engineer, stated that currently there are three culverts on the access road: a 30-inch, a 12-inch, and an 8-inch one. Mr. Kimball noted that the large culvert does not have a good amount of fill to cover it. He asked what the estimated service life would be, and Mr. Amory advised that the applicant needs to determine the degree of corrosion on the culvert and what is underneath the crushed stone which covers it. Mr. Amory stated that there may be potential damage to the culvert from overtopping of water flow during a 100-year storm that could wash out the road. In addition, the exact size and dimension of the culvert should be provided before the capacity of stormwater runoff can be determined. Mr. Cody agreed to research this information.
Mr. Moody asked what type of roadway maintenance would be required and if it would be temporary. Mr. Amory responded that before construction of the tower, the gouged areas of the roadway that have been created by runoff down the hill would need to be filled. After construction, the road will need to be maintained in order to ensure that water does not run over it.
Mr. Moody asked about the current capacity of the roadway, and Mr. George Williams stated that Mr. Nudd used equipment to run his screening and wood chipping operations.
Ms. MacNab invited public comment.
Mr. Frank Prosl of 474 Franklin Street stated that he is interested in obtaining a tape of tonight’s Board meeting. Ms. MacNab advised him that meeting minutes would be made available for public record and a tape is available by written request and a fee. Mr. Prosl stated that activity has increased by a factor of ten from Mr. Nudd’s former ownership. Currently the site is busy with equipment and other vehicles coming and going. Ms. MacNab advised any neighbors with concerns regarding the amount or nature of activities to report them to Mr. Scott Lambiase, Zoning Enforcement Officer.
Mr. Terence McDonough of 453 Franklin Street asked if the property is within the Aquifer Protection Overlay District (APOD), and Mr. Amory stated that the property is within the APOD of the Town of Marshfield’s Mount Skirgo well. Ms. Stickney noted that the APOD and WPOD should both be delineated on future site plans. Mr. McDonough stated that he had never witnessed the same level of business activity with the former owner.
Mr. Alexander Sunguroff of 333 Franklin Street asked about the effect of the fuel used for the back-up generator in the APOD, and Ms. Stickney responded that the delivery of propane had been brought to the attention of various Town departments at a Development Review Team. The APOD bylaw, Section 406, lists prohibitions for properties within the APOD.
Mr. Stephen Donovan of 568 Franklin Street asked what would happen if technology changes and cell towers are no longer needed for cell phone reception. Ms. MacNab responded that the Zoning Bylaws contain provisions for dismantling cell towers.
Ms. Nancy Sharpe of 465 Franklin Street stated that she was grateful that the Board had walked the site. She stated that she is seeing large trucks entering the property and she is concerned that the culverts will collapse, causing flooding problems. She submitted photographs to the Board of the dam and the property.
Ms. Marion O’Connor of 452 Franklin Street stated that she resides in the house next to the driveway entrance to the property. There are two driveways next to each other; one leads to the bridge and one leads to her dwelling. She stated that the neighbors are frustrated because of all the meetings they have to attend with various boards. Every board seems to have a narrow focus, and they would like to see someone within the Town looking at the whole picture.
Ms. O’Connor stated that when the dam was installed it flooded her property. She described the access to the cell tower as three pipes with dirt over them, although she noted that more material has been added within the past three months. The previous owner did not operate to the same extent that the current owners use the property. None of the current activities are approved for Residential Compatibility and WPOD zones.
Ms. O’Connor questioned how power lines would be installed underground as required by Zoning Bylaws. She noted that the state allows damming only for agricultural uses. She questioned if the proposed project would be detrimental to the South River. Ms. MacNab noted that Ms. O’Connor was raising Zoning and Conservation Commission issues, and the Planning Board is working to review the site for the proposed use.
Ms. Amanda McLeod of 589 Franklin Street asked if the foundation excavation would be within groundwater, and Mr. Amory responded that the hole would be filled with concrete. He added that the cell tower site is substantially higher than the adjacent wetlands.
Ms. Jenny Maas of 333 Franklin Street expressed concern with liquid fuel stored on the property that may leach into the water. Mr. Matthew Williams noted that there are three pre-existing oil tanks for three areas of the dwelling. In addition, there are two oil tanks and two 500-gallon fuel tanks on the property from the previous owner that have never been removed. Ms. MacNab confirmed with Mr. Matthew Williams that no other hazardous materials such as oil or fertilizer are stored on the site for the business.
Mr. Kevin Caddle of 439 Franklin Street asked how often the emergency generator would be tested, and Mr. Cody responded that it would be run with a hospital-grade silencer for fifteen minutes weekly during the daytime.
Ms. Stickney summarized that additional information has been requested tonight from the applicants and owners, including WPOD and APOD delineations on the site plan and information on each of the culverts, as well as the lease showing approval to access. Ms. MacNab added that it is up to the applicants’ engineers and staff to demonstrate site feasibility, which is then reviewed by the Town consulting engineer. Ms. Stickney suggested that the Board consider scheduling the continued public meeting after the applicants’ Conservation Commission hearing on June 10, 2008.
MOTION: Mr. Halligan made a motion, and Mr. Kimball provided a second, to continue Administrative Site Plan Review for 454 Franklin Street / Industrial Tower and Wireless LLC until June 16, 2008 at 8:00 PM, with revised plans and materials due by June 2, 2008 and a decision deadline extended to July 16, 2008. There was no discussion regarding the motion.
VOTE: The motion passed unanimously, 5-0.
Mr. Cody and Board members signed a mutual extension form.
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Board meeting adjourned at 10:38 PM. The next meeting of the Planning Board will take place on Monday, May 19, 2008 at 6:30 PM at Duxbury Town Offices, Small Conference Room, lower level.
| 
